Talk:Yacht rock

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 September 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Rock music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Music/Music genres task force Yacht rock is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good article status.Music/Music genres task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forceTemplate:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forcemusic genre United States: Music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject American music (assessed as Low-importance).

It is requested that an image or photograph of Yacht rock be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Text and/or other creative content from Yacht Rock was copied or moved into Yacht rock on September 22, 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Are not Yacht rock, as per the inventors of the term and developers of the webseries - please don't revert again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.62.183 (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. I think alot of their music, especially later in the 70’s could very easily fit into the yacht rock genre. Jgamble1971 (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to us to agree or disagree, or for us to insert personal taste-- if and only if a reliable secondary source says the band X falls into category Y, then that's enough for Wikipedia. NewkirkPlaza (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed on the Yacht Rock podcast Yacht or Nyacht Vol. 9, Fleetwood Mac is not Yacht Rock. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.77.153 (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS - iTunes Podcasts are not acceptable sources on Wikipedia--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does Brandy (You're a Fine Girl) (1972) qualify? Surely it should do. Tangerine Cossack (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Googled it ... I guess not. Tangerine Cossack (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Brandy" is on the far fringe of what is generally considered to be the Yacht Rock era, however, it is certainly a "seafaring song." Therefore, its theme has a connection with the topic. Wikipedia, chose to delete its "seafaring songs" category which I had created. However, other associated early '70s songs would have to include "Ride Captain Ride" and "Rock the Boat." - JGabbard (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Humans are obsessed with categorizing things, from Aristotle's "Categories" to Linnaeus et al and the "binomial nomenclature" we all learned about in high school biology. So it's inevitable that we will seem compelled to categorize even something so mundane as pop music of the last fifty years or so. But it would seem to be a good thing to step back and question yourself: "has something so foggy and ephemeral like 'yacht rock' REALLY got to be so laden with rules that we just end up arguing incessantly about what the rules should be?" Trying to say "this is, but this isn't" based on arbitrary criteria like what year it was written, or recorded, or sold a million copies, or whatever, just seems silly. While I can see a fun-loving little debate, I can't see "if you revert this again I'll firebomb your car!" But that's the essence of most of the discussion here on this page. Absurd. B. Polhemus (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"'Has something so foggy and ephemeral like 'yacht rock' REALLY got to be so laden with rules that we just end up arguing incessantly about what the rules should be?' Trying to say 'this is, but this isn't' based on arbitrary criteria like what year it was written, or recorded, or sold a million copies, or whatever, just seems silly."

I agree, and this is probably the best argument for this page not existing in the first place. NewkirkPlaza (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STICKTOSOURCE: Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.

If a band does a yacht rock song, it doesn't make them a yacht rock band. Just like the Beatles do not suddenly transform into an "experimental avant-garde band" based solely on a select few tracks from The White Album. Here is what the source says:

Artists most commonly thought of in the Yacht Rock era include Michael McDonald, Ambrosia, 10cc, Toto, Kenny Loggins, Boz Scaggs, and Christopher Cross.

These are the only acts in the piece referred to as yacht rock artists. The others who are named—Bread, Dr. Hook, Little River Band, et al—should be removed. ---Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any consensus on how many songs of a specific genre an artist (solo/group) does before they can be called an xxxx-artist? If Foo Bar has a 50-song (singles) discography, how many songs would it take to obtain a genre label? Or perhaps it should be a percentage, like 25%. Took a quick look over at the genre task force but didn't easily find an answer. I would think to be labeled a Yacht rockist that a noticeable portion of their discography should include songs of the genre, not just one or two.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the consensus is zero. If Wikipedia states that an artist is part of a certain genre, then the source must attribute the genre to the artist, not an arbitrary selection of songs, per WP:SYNTH: do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. (emphasis added) --Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should the section about the Yacht Rock Radio SiriusXM channel from the article of the same name of the online series be moved to this one? Bigntall1972 (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree Jgamble1971 (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly "What You Won't Do." Textbook example; if we could add this artist to the list, please. 204.78.172.254 (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a discussion site. If you have a reliable secondary sources that says that artist X belongs to genre Y, then post it, otherwise don't. NewkirkPlaza (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing the New York Observer article that indicates that anyone with actual expertise in the parsing of what qualifies as Yacht Rock-- tongue-in-cheek, seriously musicological or otherwise-- thinks that Yacht Rock is "identified with soft rock." The word "smooth" is used three times in the article, and "soft" is used as a straw-man term that then gets overused as though using it multiple times makes it true. "Smooth" does not nearly mean "soft" in the late-'70s sense. A concession that is made later in the piece, but that needs to be clarified much earlier on the page. Any objections to an overhaul of the nomenclature in this piece? -- NewkirkPlaza (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's not get too carried away looking for real expertise on the subject of yacht rock; it's a made-up term coined in a comedy web series. That article goes to probably the only people that can fairly be called "experts" in this concocted genre - the creators of the web series - and quotes them at length. Certainly, it wouldn't be inaccurate to call yacht rock a style subset of soft rock, though as the creators of Yacht Rock envisioned it, it wasn't meant to encompass all soft rock, or even all soft rock made between the mid-70s and the mid-80s. All that given, the source and the description in the lede look pretty good to me as-is. Chubbles (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago, when the online discussion thing was very (very) new, I remember having a debate with some European dude who took violent umbrage with my casual statement that New Wave rock was a follow-on to Punk. You could almost see the spittle flying from the corners of his mouth, it made him so angry that I'd even make such an absurd assertion. I guess this is the essence of "first world problem." B. Polhemus (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we're conceding that there's no such thing as real expertise on the genre outside of the creators of the web series, then on what leg does this entire article stand? I don't deny that the term has taken on a life of its own (there's a "Now! That's What I Call Yacht Rock" compilation, God help us), but if it's simply a descriptor and not an actual genre, then the article should be altered to reflect that. NewkirkPlaza (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the Resurgence section: Was this supposed to say Walter Becker? I don't believe Walter Egan had any involvement with Steely Dan at all.

West Coast sound redirects here. Wouldn't it be better the other way round ? -- Beardo (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This term is way to new and uncommon to use as a lemma. I don't get it. KhlavKhalash (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having a definitive list of artists has been a very valuable feature of this article. WP:MOS regulates lists, but does not disallow them. I feel it should be either restored or spun off into a separate article, such as this one for one-hit wonders. Thoughts? - JGabbard (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know what constitutes a definitive list of something that was made up by a bunch of comedians in a video. I mean, we could name all the artists they name, but the term is by its nature amorphous and describes a visual style as much as anything actually musical in its general usage, to the point where any such list seems destined to be almost hopelessly subjective. Chubbles (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At One-Hit Wonders, two non-blog reliable sources are required for inclusion. The same standard should work for us also. Because that list would likely be slightly shorter than what it was before, restoring the list within the article will likely be more helpful than it would be on a separate page. - JGabbard (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was really that a blog source - Yacht Rock's own - is probably the most reliable source in this context, since it is directly from the people who coined the term. Chubbles (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so, and they are not excluded. But we need other sources also. - JGabbard (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what other sources, in this context, are reliable or authoritative. How does one know what yacht rock is? What makes one an expert or authority in yacht rock, this after-the-fact, made-up thing? A lot of the mainstream third-party journalism on the subject is, frankly, kind of clueless - it reads like the AARP trying to cover trap music, and it tends to include artists that the inventors of the term explicitly reject (such as Looking Glass and the Eagles). It's written to be fun and interesting, rather than accurate. The most direct source, in this case, are media relating back directly to the people who created and popularized the term. I suppose Greg Prato's work might make sense to use, since he wrote an entire book on the phenomenon, but I haven't read it (and the library, of course, is closed.) Chubbles (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from published articles such as in music magazines, the Yacht Rock Revue and the Yacht Rock Album Series, for starters. - JGabbard (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't and won't argue that music magazines aren't relevant here, I imagine some of the choices they make will strike some observers as inexplicable. We would basically have to take a purely nominalist viewpoint here, that yacht rock is, and only is, whatever people who we judge to be authorities say yacht rock is, even if the rationale behind their choices is opaque (or logically indefensible). As for the Yacht Rock Revue and the Album Series, I'd argue these are attempts to make money off the brand of the name "yacht rock", rather than exercising any kind of critical judgment about what is or is not yacht rock. I mean, this compilation includes Grand Funk Railroad and Mr. Mister; it doesn't clarify anything about what the boundaries of the style are. Chubbles (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so, now that the list is back, I'd like to add artists that the Yacht Rock creators designate as yacht rock. They have named several bands that fit their stylistic designations (and are notable per WP:MUSIC and have articles), but are less likely to come up in surface-level treatments from magazines and newspapers. This oldid includes Jay Graydon, Al Jarreau, Pages, and Sanford Townsend Band, sourced directly to the Yacht Rock creators themselves. (It also includes several other artists that could be sourced either from the creators or from secondary sources, such as Carole Bayer Sager, Ned Doheny, Nicolette Larson, and Airplay.) I don't think there's a need to dig up two reliable sources beyond that if the creators of the term itself identify them as yacht rock.

Secondary question - what should be the procedure if one source says a band is yacht rock, and another source says it is not yacht rock? (This is really the heart of what makes these kinds of lists difficult to manage.) Chubbles (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are great questions, Chubbles. Two things come to mind: First, we don't need an exhaustive list, only a definitive one with core artists. Second, we don't need to make the list 'walk on all fours'. As it stands right now, what we have are all U.S. Top 40 artists, and each entry is well-known, well-sourced, and well-established as a yacht rock artist. I'm not opposed to expansion of the list, but if there is controversy or dispute over a particular artist, or if that artist is more obscure and/or is a one-hit wonder without a Top 40 hit, I feel it would be to best to just leave that entry off. - JGabbard (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the controversy question, okay, but I guess watchers of this page should gird their loins for a lot of WP:GENREWARRIORing. Most of the editing of articles like this one revolves around the population, expansion, decimation, and revert-warring of items on the list. As for the limitation of the list, I can't say I agree with the parameters you set here. Reaching the Top 40 isn't something that is relevant to what makes yacht rock yacht rock; it's only a measure of popularity. If the list is to be "definitive" in some sense, it seems as if that list should be populated by artists who best fit the category of yacht rock - that most closely embody the stylistic characteristics of it, separate from popularity per se (but allowing that they should at least be notable per WP:MUSIC). I think on that reading, the Yacht Rock creators' analyses would be particularly relevant to populating the list. (This will not make the list stratospherically long; even I am not able to come up with more than maybe ten or so additional musicians or bands to add.) So I think the criteria should be an either/or - either the people who coined the term have identified the artist as characteristically yacht, or (two?) reliable music publications have associated the term with the act. Chubbles (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artists having Top 40 hits only identify the core artists, so that the most recognizable examples identify the genre to more casual music listeners. The limited scope of that list is why I chose to not create a new page for it. One 'YR creators' blog plus two other reliable references should require enough effort to minimize any volatility of the list, while still welcoming a few additional well-corroborated entries. - JGabbard (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the concern is only for having a basis for the reader to understand core artists, then a list format may not be the best way to curate that. It'd be better to have a prose section explaining how and why each mentioned artist is representative of the style. A list, by its very nature, is designed to show the bounds of a style by the breadth of its contents. And, again, "coreness" here is really not represented by Top 40-ness at all; some of the "most yachty" groups (those most representative of its stylistic elements) are not those that are most recognizable. If the list criteria for entry are "two reliable sources" or "two reliable sources plus a YR creators blog", then the creators' input actually counts for nothing; that setup doesn't give any weight at all to the founders. Chubbles (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if we should continue to use this source. While I think this is probably an acceptable source for topics related to Tennessee, it's not a music publication, and the article is not written with any indication of depth, or sophistication, or expertise in the topic. It feels like a slapped-together buzz list to draw attention to the site, rather than something genuinely informational in intention. Furthermore, it includes 10cc as a canonical band, and I don't really see 10cc mentioned much at all in music journalism on the subject. (The Yacht Rock creators rejected 10cc three times as "nyacht rock".) The others in the Williamsonsource article are all pretty uncontroversial and widely mentioned in better publications. Chubbles (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know people are against making a "full list", but what about the songs explicitly mentioned in the videos?

• Ep1: Loggins & Messina - Sailin' the Wind (though, given the story, it might be proto-Yacht Rock)
• Ep1: The Doobie Brothers - What a Fool Believes
• Ep2: Hall and Oates - Portable Radio (though, given the story, this might be anti-Yacht Rock)
• Ep2: Kenny Loggins - This is it
• Ep2: Christopher Cross - Sailing
• Ep3: Steely Dan - Time Out of Mind
• Ep3: Kenny Loggins - Keep the Fire (though it is criticised for "hard beats and primal screams")
• Ep3: Kenny Loggins - I'm Alright

--2A02:8109:9AC0:1E40:F051:35DE:B40A:C2A7 (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the better place for that is here, and the episode songs are already listed. Chubbles (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with this approach. No journalists know anything about this category because it doesn't actually exist - it's those artists in the videos plus others that are really very similar (eg Michael McDonald as a solo artist, or Toto who are also mentioned in passing). There's no point looking at lists which say frankly dumb things like 'they have a video with a yacht in it'[ (Duran Duran, Rio which is definitely not yacht rock). Viddy300 (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Yacht Rock's definition on Wikipedia is characterized as a broad genre, the largest of the Facebook groups have narrowed the definition dramatically. If it doesn't fit the admins description perfectly, the posts are removed. Deviations from their opinions - including members pointing out how certain songs could be considered part of the genre - are not allowed and removed without any explanation. They forget that the term and description of Yacht Rock started as satire. 2600:1700:8E90:3EC0:7C53:6F01:2E34:F579 (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "I'm making fun of the songwriting process, but the music is generally treated pretty lovingly."^[1]

They are not sure of the definition of the neologism Yacht rock. They say it's a subset of soft rock. How can it be a subset of it if this term never existed in the 70s 80's 90's (in the period the songs were created)? Soft rock was a subset of rock created in order to classify these songs. Another thing that they say about the yacht rock neologism is that it is a broad category. I think this one is a better definition as the list of yacht rock neologism contains artist from folk rock, pop, disco rnb, country and so on. In my opinion it is broader than Rock itself. We should just rename Rock as Yacht just so new generations can have something they can call their own. Theresalreadyanameforthat (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 21 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taekimbuedu (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Taekimbuedu (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Contemporaneously, the term "yacht rock" didn't exist with the music the term describes, from about 1975 to 1984."

I'd fix it if I knew what the heck it's trying to say. Phiwum (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the term did not exist until 2005. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this anonymous editor made the sentence worse. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I was young, these music weren't called yacht rock. I remember that in the 80s and 90s Radio DJs and rock magazines referred to these songs either as soft rock, light rock or pop rock. Yacht rock is just renaming something that already exist. This sounds like something out of Orwell's 1984 where INGSOC people were renaming things.

As noted in the article, yacht rock is not synonymous with any of these genres; it's a subset of them (and of jazz rock). Korny O'Near (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. All the artists pertaining to soft rock are in the yacht rock neologism list. Other pertains to folk rock, soul, rnb or disco. I don't think you understand what neologism is. For instance, take hard rock. A guy out of nowhere in 2023 renames this musical genre as motorcycle rock or Harley Davidson rock. Theresalreadyanameforthat (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simply not true. Artists classified as soft rock but never as yacht rock include Air Supply, Bread, Elton John and many others. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely correct, OP; this is a completely idiotic term with no real definitional boundaries that was invented as a joke, and which ran away from the comedy team that invented it and was taken seriously by the music industry. Alas, since it has become a commonly used term, we must still have an article about it. The Yacht Rock web series, I have no doubt, will amuse you greatly; you'll get the humor. Chubbles (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that it started as a joke, but no, it didn't run away from the people who coined it (and they're not a comedy team, but that's another story). Quite to the contrary: as this article notes, the Yacht Rock creators have been at the forefront of defining what is and is not yacht rock, hosting some long-running podcasts on the matter; they seem to take the concept quite seriously. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the music industry is running with this term. What I've seen mostly is journalists using this term who are perhaps fan of the series or are connected to the creators. I don't have anything against the series. What I don't agree with is taking music from different styles and trying to make a new musical genre with songs that existed 30-40 years ago that have already been classified into existing musical genre. They are coming up with a new one now Yacht Soul. What's next? Yacht rap, Yacht pop, Yacht folk, Yacht country, Yacht Funk, Yacht disco, Yacht blues, Yacht jazz, Yacht wave and Yacht punk.I think Fred Arminsen will like the last one. Theresalreadyanameforthat (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article describes the popularity of yacht rock as reflective of a regressive Reagan-era American society and "about the garden of nightmares America had become.

Only problem is that the music had nothing to do with that, as it began in 1975 and ended in 1984, and most, if not all of the musicians and singers had nothing whatsoever to do with Reagan or conservatives, with some of the most popular songs of this era being recorded (not released) three years before Reagan took office. Yet another example of a Wikipedia anachronism. This might be the most inaccurate article on this site. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]